obamacare abortion pill mandate defeated

The Hobby Lobby case was the catalyst that caused me to become actively pro-life. Clearly this is not over, but I think it is a good sign that things can change. I don’t think that this should be framed as a matter of religious freedom because life is far more relevant than religion, but I am glad that Christian organizations won’t be forced to pay for pills that have potential to kill zygotes by preventing implantation.

As we will show, Congress provided protection for people like the Hahns and Greens by employing a familiar legal fiction: It included corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons.” But it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction is to provide protection for human beings. A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends.

Next, the Court stated that it has “little trouble” concluding that the abortion-pill mandate “substantially burdened” Hobby Lobby’s exercise of religion. This meant that the Obama Administration could only prevail if it could show that its mandate was the “least restrictive means” of advancing a “compelling government interest.”

The Obama Administration could not meet that heavy burden.

So it lost. Decisively.

What does this mean? It means that the Obama Administration cannot trample the rights of business owners at will, treating them merely as extensions of the federal government. Business owners enjoy fundamental liberties, and that common sense conclusion will have wide-ranging ramifications for liberty.

The decision is also a clear defeat for the abortion lobby and its radical White House allies. Hobby Lobby and – by extension – all of our ACLJ clients cannot be drafted into directly subsidizing abortion on demand.

We filed a key amicus brief in this case where we asserted the very arguments the Court adopted today. In addition, we have two cases before the Supreme Court on this same issue, have filed seven challenges to the abortion-pill Mandate (prevailing in all of them) and have filed more than a dozen amicus briefs nationwide. In other words, we launched a years-long effort to defeat the Mandate and are grateful for this outstanding result.

The Obama Administration has suffered a stinging defeat. And that means liberty won.

And – most important of all – lives will be saved.”

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

Author: chandlerklebs

I have unusual thoughts on almost every subject. I am as Pro-Life as I can possibly be. I am strongly opposed to violence of any type. That includes rape, war, and (obviously) abortion.
Everything I think, speak, and write must be filtered by the effect it could have on the lives of others. If I am in any way promoting violence accidentally, please let me know.
View all posts by chandlerklebs

6 thoughts on “obamacare abortion pill mandate defeated”

*sigh* But it’s okay for corporations to trample on employees right to medical care “because religion” — which is a farther reaching issue than the matter of the birth control pill (which calling it an abortion pill is mind-numbingly inaccurate — preventing implantation is not equivalent to abortion in any way whatsoever). When blood transfusions are denied because of an employer’s “deeply held religious views” and people die as a result (meaning, the only “people” the HL ruling considers actual people: men), perhaps the topic of 1st Amendment violation and infringement (in the sense of FROM) in the spectacularly disgusting HL case will be (necessarily) be revisited.

I really dislike that it is seen as a religious issue. Imagine a different scenario where a company was run by a bunch of asexual atheists who did not want any part of paying for any type of contraception. If you look at it in terms like that, then you mind understand how I feel about it.

However, when it comes to religion, I think that you and I probably agree completely. Religion controls people in nasty ways without reason.

It is a *human* issue, and ignores all the things that hormonal birth control pills are actually used for *outside* of contraception. The impossible-to-exhaust list of possible unintended consequences as a result of this ruling is staggering. This is nothing to do with religious freedom (which already exists, by virtue of the 1st Amendment). This ruling abhorrently perverts the 1st Amendment — think on it, if the religion were anything *other* than some form of Christianity, the outcome would not have been the same. It’s no coincidence that the members of the majority view are men…AND associated with the Catholic faith.

I can certainly imagine a corporation run by a group of asexual atheists not wanting to pay for contraception. My feeling would be the same. The right to basic healthcare and the choices involved therein are NOT between an employee and an employer, but between a patient and a doctor. Period. Such is the case for *any* situation where healthcare is involved, not just women’s health. Furthermore, the even larger problem with this ruling is that it upends more than a century of corporate law…and if that is something that you don’t understand, you’re not alone. This ruling is based on a singular ideology, NOT on anything actually supported by the Constitution.

I agree that a different religion had been the majority in this country, the ruling would have been different.

I admit that I am ignorant of laws. In fact I am quite sure that if citizens understood the laws of the country, lawyers would probably be out of business. The problem is that almost every law has some type of religion behind its origin. Without understanding and submitting to Christianity, I may never be able to obey certain laws that I think are stupid.

I am so committed to nonviolence that I happen to think there should not even be a military. Naturally, most Americans will disagree with me about that in the same way they disagree with me about abortion and hormonal birth control pills. We live in a world where people assume that killing is the only solution to a problem. My radical pacifism is a philosophy that many people are unable to understand. I believe I will spend the majority of my life speaking to people about it.

Well, my degrees are all in business, and while I’m not a corporate law expert (by ANY stretch of the imagination), but how this ruling potentially affects corporate law is actually *bigger* (and truly scarier) than any person’s opinion about birth control pills.

As for pacifism as a way of being…I’m cool with that. I personally disagree with doing away with the military, while likewise opposing war. The purpose of a military is to protect against external aggression (and our empire endeavors are breaking us as a nation financially, not to mention flying in the face of what we, as a nation, are supposed to stand for). Insofar as “radical” pacifism…again, that’s totally fine, for *you.* I certainly admire the idea, while I’m not in any way a pacifist. I’m not a hawk, either, but I firmly believe each and all of us have the absolute right to self-defense…and by any means necessary in life-threatening situations (though I disagree with Stand Your Ground laws implemented in various states on philosophical grounds that carry basic Castle Doctrine to an unreasonable extreme).

I think part of the problem is the misguided idea that “all” killing = “bad” – such is not the case. Death is a part of life…a *natural* part of life…and it seems only the human animal spends the inordinate amount of time we do contemplating its supposed awful-ness. It is natural to fear *dying* (because it’s an unknown…and because it’s a personal end…and none of us knows HOW we’re gonna go), but fearing death is flat silly…and I suspect that fear contributes to the idea of “all” killing being “bad” — when in fact, some forms of killing are absolutely necessary for survival. One need look no further than the dynamic between a natural predator like a wolf or a lion (both obligate carnivores) and how they hunt, which prey they select and kill to feed their pack or pride (respectively) and how the killing of the ill, the old, the weak, etc strengthens the overall herd. *shrugs* Still, your idealism is admirable…even if I don’t have the luxury of sharing certain types of idealism.

Back to the subject of the HL ruling…I do understand how people against abortion believe that this SCOTUS ruling is some sort of “victory” — but taking the extremely long view of the actual history and the actual laws affected, this ruling is on the wrong side of history as much as Citizens United was. Justice Bader Ginsberg’s powerful minority response TO the decision speaks to *part* of the problems with the atrocious ruling.

I am glad that you can admire my idealism. Perhaps it will never happen as I imagine, but if someone has a goal, it seems that they should have the highest ideal they can imagine. If you think about it long enough, you will see that if everyone was as peaceful as I am, there would probably be no need for war.

As far as other types of killing that may be “absolutely necessary for survival”, you may be right, but I think we can both agree that there are times when it is not necessary.

I really do appreciate that you took the time to comment on my blog. I appreciate your input on the Hobby Lobby ruling because it is a VERY deep emotional issue for me because I DO believe that abortion is the killing of an animal just like me. You might understand why I have a problem with people choosing to kill their children for selfish reasons. Usually, it is men who are behind this and I believe that Christianity has a tendency to promote abortion more than it prevents it. This is part of why I need people like you on my side about the religion issue even if you disagree with me about other things.
Maybe you can help others come out of false beliefs which lead to unwanted pregnancy in the first place.